Welcome! This is a forum for vegans! Non-vegans: please search the now archived Going Vegan area if you have questions about going vegan.
Please register for full access. Go to Settings>Permission Groups to see all subforums.

Re: Roadkill, cannibalism & dogmatism

Eating animals is alien to vegans, no matter what way they died! Why do humans have this obsession with living off other living beings like parasites when it is totally unnecessary.
What would the human race do if all animals ceased to exist on the earth.........would they therefore cease to exist too?
Of course they wouldn't, so why don't they stop viewing other living beings as 'food'? It's so barbaric!

re: Roadkill, cannibalism & dogmatism

Korn

It sure is the issue, and for a reason... wait - for at least two reasons, actually.

The word vegan needs to have one meaning, not many. When visiting a cafe, and ask for a vegan meal, lots of people (vegans, lactose intolerant people etc) want to know that this meal doesn't contain animal products. They want to make their own decision about what they want to eat, and not to leave it up to the chef to put in some animal products there (eg. eggs from so called free range eggs, or honey) if he personally thinks that there isn't a conflict between 'vegan' and eggs or honey. If someone would succeed in launching the idea that the fact that vegans don't eat animal products is just 'dogmatism', the word 'vegan' would start loosing it's meaning and therefor become less useful.

Well, I agree that the definition we present to the world needs to be "no animal products". And restaurant chefs, manufacturers, etc need to work by this definition. But (and I may be confusing the threads here) the issue is ethics here. The question is, does the eating of the flesh of an animal that lived free and then died a natural death present an ethical dilemma for the the vegan. I say no. The reason I personally became a vegan last summer was because I decided to no longer contribute to the demand for more animal exploitation, torture and killing. So, living in a consumer society, to me that means "no animal products" and that rule covers pretty much all of the choices I have had to make so far. But here we are talking about biking down the road and seeing a dead deer off in the distance that apparently died a natural death. All personal tastes aside, is there an ethical issue with eating the flesh of this animal? I say no. Eating the flesh of the deer (again, all personal preferences and aversions aside) would not create a demand for the exploitation, torture and killing of another deer. So if I had to make a personal choice, I would experience no ethical pangs about eating the flesh of an animal that lived free and died a natural death.

Vegans have never discussed including meat from certain animals and not from others - or eggs from certain hens and not from others - into their diet. IMHO, this is not based on dogmatism. You won't hear 'Ooops, I'm a vegan now, so unfortunately I can't even eat meat from animals who died a natural death - I would have loved to, but I'm not allowed to - by... myself' from a vegan.

Yes. But there are all kinds of vegans. There are vegans who asre merely dogmatic and don't eat animal products because they don't eat animal products. There are vegans who don't eat animal products for health reasons. There are vegans who don't consume animal products for religious reasons. There are vegans who don't consume animal products for ethical reasons. And then there are combinations of the above. I became a vegetarian for health reasons, but I became a vegan for ethical reasons. And I see no ethical dilemma with eating the flesh of an animal that lived free and then died a natural death. I don't care about labels. I don't care if you perhaps think this disqualifies me as a vegan. I care about not contributing to the demand for more animal exploitation, torture and killing.

If a person who is against eating animal products is offered an animal product and eats it 'because it was there anyway, and it's not my fault that it's there/dead', the harm he causes is just as un-needed that the harm an environmentalist causes if he drives around in a polluting private airplane 'because it was there anyway - my dad gave it to me, and it's not my fault that I got it'. If this environmentalist wants as little pollution as possible, he sells or gives away this airplane to someone else, who are OK with using that sort of airplane for his private trips, and finds another way to move around instead. If a vegan has access to 'free range eggs' or meat from roadkill, he can also pass these animal products over to someone who would have bought eggs or meat from a factory farm instead. This way he'll reduce the money put into supporting these industries a bit.... just a bit, but that's the case if you avoiding eating a chicken too.

That is not an exact parallel. We are not talking about supporting an industry. We are talking (at least I am) about finding an animal that 1. lived free and 2. died a truly acidental death or an animal that died a natural death. I do not see the eating of the flesh of this animal as an ethical issue. No industry of animal exploitation is being supported.

I wouldn't eat an animal product from an animal that had lived a happy life every second of it's life and then was killed by a tasty, gentle 'killer pill' (causing it to just fall asleep and die without feeling any pain).

I wouldn't either. But that is not what I am talking about. We are not talking about the deliberate killing of an animal. We are talking about the truly accidental killing of an animal or the natural death of an animal.

I wouldn't eat the meat of an animal killed in a car accident or of old age for the same reason an average meat eater wouldn't eat human meat from the same situations.

But is that an ethical objection or is that the "ick" factor?

This average meat eater doesn't look at human meat as food for humans - I don't look at animal meat as food for humans.

Yes, but that is the result of tradition, culture, conditioning, personal preference. Ethics are not an issue. The issue of eating the flesh of a human being that died a natural death has nothing to do with ethics. Consider the plane crash victims in the Andes. Consider the Donner Party. They were not raising humans to be slaughtered and then eaten. They were not killing people so they could eat their flesh. They simply ate the flesh of those who had already died. As revolting and disturbing that may have been to them and to us today, ethics are not an issue.

A curious aside: in his immensely enjoyable book god Is Not Great, Christopher Hitchens hypothesizes that the reason "heaven hates ham" is that pork reminded the ancient Jews too much of human flesh.

Re: Roadkill

sandra

Eating animals is alien to vegans, no matter what way they died!

Yes it is. The very thought of eating animal flesh may be revolting to some vegans. But that is not the issue. The question is whether there is a moral dilemma with eating the flesh of an animal that lived a free life and then died a natural or truly accidental death.

Why do humans have this obsession with living off other living beings like parasites when it is totally unnecessary.

But human beings ARE parasites, in a manner of speaking. We live off plant-based foods. But I do understand your point. Still, that is not the issue. The question is whether you think there is an ethical problem with eating the flesh of an animal that lived a free life and then died an accidental or natural death.

What would the human race do if all animals ceased to exist on the earth.........would they therefore cease to exist too?

Probably, considering the ecological havoc it would wreak on the planet. But I know what you mean. The consumption of animal products is utterly unnecessary for human survival or even good health. Especially today, in 2007. I wish people would stop and think, rather than live by the traditions they have been handed down, traditions that go back all the way to our barbaric, uncivilized, pre-historic past. We are not those people anymore. Our world is different now. Unfortunately, our physical and ethical evolution has not quite caught up to our technology.

Re: Roadkill

Klytemnest

Yes it is. The very thought of eating animal flesh may be revolting to some vegans. But that is not the issue. The question is whether there is a moral dilemma with eating the flesh of an animal that lived a free life and then died a natural or truly accidental death.

The question could then be expanded to ask... "Is there a moral dilemma with eating the flesh of a human that lived a free life and then died a natural or truly accidental death?"

Maybe it's just my own beliefs, but I'd no more eat a dead human then I would an animal.

Re: Roadkill

Odinsfury

I may have missed it, but I didn't see anyone mention the fact that roadkill still more than likely died by human hands. To me it's no more ethical than going to the supermarket and getting a few pounds of processed dead animal.

Not quite. There is a difference. If the animal was deliberately killed, I would agree. But if the death was truly accidental, your consumption of this animal would not be contributing to the future killing of animals. And, for me, that is the difference. The whole reason I became a vegan was to decrease, in my small way, the demand for further animal exploitation, torture and killing.

Re: Roadkill

Mahk

I'm a vegan because I am against humans killing, harming, hurting, manipulating etc. animals. As Odinsfury, earlier, points out, roadkill probably did come about due to actions of people, so I think it is a bad example for our hypothetical question.

But the issue really is whether it was killed deliberately or accidentally. If you are a passanger in a car and the driver deliberately hits and kills a rabbit and then say "Hey, let's take it with us and have it for dinner tonight" I would say this is very much an ethical issue. And by consuming it, you, my little vegan love, would be engaging in supporting and encouraging your moron friend to continue to hit and kill animals on the road.

However, if you knew for sure that the animal was killed truly accidentally, then by consuming it you would not be encouraging future roadkillings.

Obviously, as many have pointed out already, stay away from roadkill. But we are just talking about the ethics here.

How about this one instead: While walking in the woods you see a healthy deer instantly struck dead by a bolt of lightning, right before your own eyes. Being a vegan may you eat the carcass or keep the antlers as art? Although I of course wouldn't, I think technically it is permissible for a "rather odd" vegan to do so. Why? Because the rotting corpse in front of you is not really an animal anymore. It doesn't have a soul, feelings, emotions, pain, life, etc. It is decaying flesh in a transitional stage of slowly turning into soil. Anyone against using soil?

I agree. There are many reasons for being vegan. For me the most important one is the ethical issue. If a deer is struck by lightning and died before your eyes, then I see no problem with its consumption. Would I eat it? No, but because of health concerns only. For me the whole point of being a vegan is to alleviate, in one's small way, the suffering of animals by decreasing the demand for the further animal exploitation. A lightning kill a deer is not animal exploitation. And by consuming the deer, you would not be encouraging it, nor would you be encouraging more lightning strikes of deer. So ethically, I have no problem with that.

Or this one: Again, while walking in the woods (not a park) you stumble upon a pretty bird feather on the ground. Are you allowed to take it home to turn it into art or jewelry? To me this is the same as the lightning struck deer carcass. No animal is being killed, harmed, manipulated etc. by humans, so it is allowed.

Re: Roadkill, cannibalism & dogmatism

Odinsfury

This is a very iffy subject indeed. I think the use of an animal that died of natural causes is still not a vegan quality. The way I see it, vegans stand for not using animals regardless of the way that they died.

Not I. For me it's all (well, mostly) about ethics. I think it is unethical to enslave, torture, and unnecessarily, deliberately kill a sentient being. That is the very reason for my being a vegan. The consumption of a deer struck by lightning before your eyes, does not present an ethical dilemma. You may choose not to consume its flesh because the very thought of it revolts you or because of health concerns or what have you. But ethically, there is no problem here. I would not eat it, but because of health concerns. I would see no ethical problem with anyone else eating it.

If you are saying that the consumption of this deer would be unethical, then I am afraid, you are simply being dogmatic and no reasonable. And I am not sure you are saying this... You may be saying that ifyou eat an animal that died a natural death, you are not vegan, regardless of whether or not it is ethical to do so. I would agree.

Even if one were to take this lightning struck deer and use it, innocent as it may seem, we may still be intervening on the natural order of an ecosystem.

But Odin, we are not sepate, or above, the ecosystem. We are part of it. As were our pre-historic ancestors.

If humans are not intended to eat meat, (and I believe that they are not) then taking this now dead deer could be taking food out of the mouth of another animal needlessly.

Intended to eat meat? Humans are omnivores. Humans CAN eat meat, from a purely biological standpoint. But that does not mean that humans may or should eat meat. One is an issue of biology, the other of ethics. I choose not to eat animal products not because I think it is absolutely the wrong diet for a human being, but rather because of ethics.

Re: Roadkill and dogmatism

But why would any vegan want a pair of antlers on their wall even hypothetically? It would confuse any omni that saw and goodness knows they get a bit confused by us vegans already!

Hahaha. True. But I just don't worry about that stuff.

I know the definition of vegan is to be against animal exploitation or cruelty but I think it is easier to think of it as not using anything of animal origin.

Well, yes, that's a good rule of thumb for those of us who are part of a consumer society, who get their food from the store, rather than look for food out in the woods. If a person thinks the antlers of a lightning-struck deer are beautiful, terrific. Let them mount them on their wall. Traditionally that is done by hunters who are so proud of having been able to kill a defenseless animal from a safe distance. It's a kind of trophy, a kind of testament to their masculinity. After all, what could be more masculine than killing someone weaker than you? Those of us who actually care about living sentient beings have no need of such symbolic penis extensions, so I don't think it very likely that a vegan would mount antlers of his vegan wall. But ethically, I have no problem with it. Of course, one could argue that doing so, he might inspire someone else to actually deliberately kill a deer so he could display his antlers on his omni wall.

Even though "no animal products" is a good rule of thumb for us vegans, I think it is important that we remember the reason we are vegans.

I speak from experience. When I was a vegetarian I completely forgot the reason for it. I mean, the whole idea was to eat healthily. But I just kept eating my clam chowder, my caesar salads, my cheeseburgers (with a veggie patty)... That completely defeated the purpose of my being a vegeratian. So I think we should keep in mind what we are trying to do by adopting a vegan lifestyle. Then again, everyone is different. My reasons for being vegan may not be yours.

I was actually trying to think of an example of where I would be willing to use an animal product.

I have a compost bin where you can put cat hair that you pick up from vacuum cleaner to break down and recycle.

I was thinking you could make cushions and put cat hair to fill them up which would be using an animal product but not being cruel or exploiting them.

APOSTATE!

Just kidding. That is totally fine. I can't imagine why anyone would object to that. You know what I think is another good rule of thumb? Ask yourself if you would have an ethical problem using human products instead of animal ones? Would you have a problem using the hair of your daughter for your compost? Would you have any ethical problem using her soft, luxurious locks and supple tresses for cushions? I see no ethical problem there - unless you were forcing her to cut her hair or to shave her head.

Re: Roadkill and dogmatism

Oh thats interesting Mahk, I had never thought of that or heard about that artist.
I know some artists use a lot of stuff (including their own body parts) in art.

I suppose that I want to get to a point personally when I disregard vegan rules or whatever and just do what I think is best. Its easier said than done though.

That's what I am talking about! That warms my heart. Blindly following any rules is just dogmatism. Making reasoned decisions about how to live takes more thought and energy. Granted, the vegan rules are arrived at after much thought. But I don't think that this is where thought stops. We need to continually examine our choices and their consequences, rather than simply refer to the vegan equivalent of the Ten Commandments.

Re: Roadkill, cannibalism & dogmatism

The question could then be expanded to ask... "Is there a moral dilemma with eating the flesh of a human that lived a free life and then died a natural or truly accidental death?"

Maybe it's just my own beliefs, but I'd no more eat a dead human then I would an animal.

Yes, I would agree with the expansion of this question.

Why wouldn't you eat human flesh? Would you have refrained from it if you were one of the passangers on that plain that crashed in the Andes? Would you have refrained from it if you had been in the Donner Party? This was the flesh of people who had died without being deliberately killed. As revolting as that idea may be to us right now, we are not talking about, if you'll pardon the pun, personal taste. We are talking about ethics. Why wouldn't your ethics permit you to consume human flesh? Or rather, is it your ethics that would not permit you to consume human flesh or is it something else, like the ick-factor?

Re: Roadkill, cannibalism & dogmatism

Otter_

Ethically speaking, If you were to make a jacket of the deer's skin. would you see it as promoting the use of animals as clothing?

Good question. Good point. I mean, obviously, if this was an animal that was struck by lightning, then no one deliberately killed it. But considering that we live in a society where most animal products are the result of the enslavement, torture and murder of innocent animals, I can see how someone might see the jacket, like it, and order one - one made of the skin of a deer that WAS deliberately killed for its skin. And that was my problem with displaying this same deer's antlers on the wall.

Re: Roadkill, cannibalism & dogmatism

Klytemnest

Yes, I would agree with the expansion of this question.

Why wouldn't you eat human flesh? Would you have refrained from it if you were one of the passangers on that plain that crashed in the Andes? Would you have refrained from it if you had been in the Donner Party? This was the flesh of people who had died without being deliberately killed. As revolting as that idea may be to us right now, we are not talking about, if you'll pardon the pun, personal taste. We are talking about ethics. Why wouldn't your ethics permit you to consume human flesh? Or rather, is it your ethics that would not permit you to consume human flesh or is it something else, like the ick-factor?

No, not the ick-factor, although... ick.
I simply do not see flesh as food. But you do raise an interesting point... would that change if it meant continued survival. For me, my thoughts now are that it would probably not change, and I would die. Quite easy to make that judgment sitting in an office and being well fed. It is hard to say what the human desire to continue living would have the mind seem reasonable, and justifiable, in the scenarios you stated.

Re: Roadkill, cannibalism & dogmatism

Otter_

Ethically speaking, If you were to make a jacket of the deer's skin. would you see it as promoting the use of animals as clothing?

On the other hand, think on this. Years ago, before I became a vegan, I bought a really cute pleather jacket. I got lots of compliments on it. But no one had a clue it was not real leather and fur. Every time I said "it's pleather" people were surprised.

So, doesn't think create a similar ethical dilemma? If I had not told my friends that my jacket was pleather, and allowed them to assume it was a leather jacket, would I have been guilty of encouraging the use of animals as clothing? In other words, to what degree are we responsible for the way other people perceive us and are influenced by their perception of us?

Re: Roadkill, cannibalism & dogmatism

Klytemnest

On the other hand, think on this. Years ago, before I became a vegan, I bought a really cute pleather jacket. I got lots of compliments on it. But no one had a clue it was not real leather and fur. Every time I said "it's pleather" people were surprised.

So, doesn't think create a similar ethical dilemma? If I had not told my friends that my jacket was pleather, and allowed them to assume it was a leather jacket, would I have been guilty of encouraging the use of animals as clothing? In other words, to what degree are we responsible for the way other people perceive us and are influenced by their perception of us?

It's a thinker...

Actually, that is exactly the reason I don't wear fake leather clothing. Even though the individual item is vegan, it's my belief that it fosters the desire for the real product.

Re: Roadkill, cannibalism & dogmatism

Otter_

No, not the ick-factor, although... ick.
I simply do not see flesh as food. But you do raise an interesting point... would that change if it meant continued survival. For me, my thoughts now are that it would probably not change, and I would die.

I don't believe you.

Quite easy to make that judgment sitting in an office and being well fed. It is hard to say what the human desire to continue living would have the mind seem reasonable, and justifiable, in the scenarios you stated.

Yep.

But I am curious, why would you prefer to die than to eat human flesh, especially the flesh of a human that died an accidental death, one that was not deliberately murdered? Is it ethics that would bar you from consuming human flesh? I understand that you do not see flesh as food, but we are not just talking about food here. We are talking about survival. You would not be hurting anyone by consuming the victim's flesh. You would not be encouraging cannibalism. So why would you prefer to die instead?

Re: Roadkill, cannibalism & dogmatism

I was thinking recently about this famous desert island that meateaters always dredge up in conversations to try to undermine veganism.

I was actually wondering what I would HONESTLY do in this situation. I wonder if the instinct to survive would take over me or if I would stick to my principles?
(I have a horrible feeling that I would end up eating any animal/human that I could.)

Sorry - just interrupting your debate Otter and Klytemnest -carry on as before.

Re: Roadkill, cannibalism & dogmatism

sugarmouse

i agree....roadkill...isnt totally dispondent though to me as my species killed that animal..cars are not natural..not vegan even if we get really strict (which i am not) .if an animal has died of old age, then yes technically i am not being cruel if i eat him or her BUT as a vegan by societial standards i wouldnt then be a true one, at all!

So what? Who cares. All that would mean is that your label would change. You would then fall short of some perceived ideal of "vegan perfection." And I think being vegan for the sake of labeling oneself vegan is missing the point of being vegan. The whole idea, for me, is animal suffering. Well, not the whole point, but the most important one anyway.

if i was starving to death..then yes i may eat a dead animal for survival..but i do not beleive at any situation, i need to eat meat or want to no matter how it is killed..

Neither do I. But that says nothing of the ethics of eating an animal that was struck by lightning. The manner in which it died does nothing to encourage further animal suffering. Therefore, eating its flesh is ethically neutral.

Re: Roadkill, cannibalism & dogmatism

Klytemnest

But I am curious, why would you prefer to die than to eat human flesh, especially the flesh of a human that died an accidental death, one that was not deliberately murdered? Is it ethics that would bar you from consuming human flesh? I understand that you do not see flesh as food, but we are not just talking about food here. We are talking about survival. You would not be hurting anyone by consuming the victim's flesh. You would not be encouraging cannibalism. So why would you prefer to die instead?

In a way it is promoting cannibalism. but, only under extreme circumstances. I think it comes down to the same ethical question you posed earlier... To what degree are we responsible for the way other people perceive us and are influenced by their perception of us?

Re: Roadkill, cannibalism & dogmatism

Otter_

In a way it is promoting cannibalism. but, only under extreme circumstances.

Yes. And would that be a bad thing to encourage? Would it be a bad thing to teach your daughter? Would you prefer that she die rather than partake of the flesh of a victim of a plane crash? I wouldn't. Letting the dead body rot uneaten does nobody any good. But eating its flesh will provide your daughter with some sustenance and perhaps allow her to live long enough to be rescued. In such cases, I say cannibalism is something that ought to be encouraged, provided no one is deliberately murdered so others can feast on their flesh.

Oy, this sounds like a Christian allegory...

I think it comes down to the same ethical question you posed earlier... To what degree are we responsible for the way other people perceive us and are influenced by their perception of us?

Yes. And I think it is important to realize that we have little control over what other people think of us. We all do it. We judge other people based on minimal, if any, information. This is why it is important to keep the dialogue going.

Re: Roadkill, cannibalism & dogmatism

why would you even feel the need to eat road kill when there are so many fresh veggies? you don't have to be vegan, no one is forcing you, it seems to me that you are searching for a reason to eat meat.

Re: Roadkill, cannibalism & dogmatism

oh I see sorry!

Well then I know that most people don't go around and purposly hit deer with their cars but just the fact that they are driving a vehicle that weighs over 2,000 pounds down a road that just happens to go through a deers enviornment at sometimes speeds of 65 mph....I mean if I hit a deer or another animal, I would totally blame myself, I don't see how I would be able to eat it...

Re: Roadkill, cannibalism & dogmatism

Rami.................it is ethically wrong to eat the flesh of any animal whether it lived a happy life and died happy or whether it lived a horrible life and died horribly............this debate is rather pointless, I have to say!

Re: Roadkill, cannibalism & dogmatism

Klytemnest

The question is, does the eating of the flesh of an animal that lived free and then died a natural death present an ethical dilemma for the the vegan. I say no. The reason I personally became a vegan last summer was because I decided to no longer contribute to the demand for more animal exploitation, torture and killing. So, living in a consumer society, to me that means "no animal products" and that rule covers pretty much all of the choices I have had to make so far. But here we are talking about biking down the road and seeing a dead deer off in the distance that apparently died a natural death. All personal tastes aside, is there an ethical issue with eating the flesh of this animal? I say no.

I hear that you say no, but if you own anything, eat anything, use anything you don't need to wont/eat/use... by not giving whatever you own/eat/use to someone who needs/wants it, that other person is going to get it from somewhere else. When he does (eg. buy meat) he contributes to animal suffering exploitation, but wouldn't have done it if you had provided him with some free 'food' from a roadkill.

People don't become vegans for health reasons, but they may eat vegan food for health reasons... it's important not to mix up the terms here...

That is not an exact parallel. We are not talking about supporting an industry.

You are, I'm not, and have been people avoiding meat an animal products centuries before such a thing as a meat industry existed...

I do not see the eating of the flesh of this animal as an ethical issue. No industry of animal exploitation is being supported.

Frankly - I don't care. What matters is that by doing one thing instead of another, you can save some animals' lives.

I wouldn't eat the meat of an animal killed in a car accident or of old age for the same reason an average meat eater wouldn't eat human meat from the same situations.

An average meat eater doesn't look at human meat as food for humans - I don't look at animal meat as food for humans.

Re: Roadkill, cannibalism & dogmatism

sandra

Rami.................it is ethically wrong to eat the flesh of any animal whether it lived a happy life and died happy or whether it lived a horrible life and died horribly............this debate is rather pointless, I have to say!

So it is ethically wrong because you say it is and that's that? A debate with such silly arguments would indeed be pointless. Luckily Otter and I are not engaged in such a debate. If you'd like to join, you are welcome to, but you'll have to do better than making a mere assertion and declaring it to be true by fiat.

Re: Roadkill, cannibalism & dogmatism

Hi Rami sweetie.............you don't need evidence and reasoning to know some things are wrong and abhorrent. I don't need evidence and reasoning to tell me for example that paedophillia is wrong...............it just is!

Re: Roadkill, cannibalism & dogmatism

sandra

Hi Rami sweetie.............you don't need evidence and reasoning to know some things are wrong and abhorrent. I don't need evidence and reasoning to tell me for example that paedophillia is wrong...............it just is!

Child molestation is ethically right or wrong for some very specific reasons. In our civilized world, despite religious efforts, we still own our bodies and lives. To use someone else's body without their permission is unethical. Minors are (according to the law) deemed to be incapable of informed consent. In the US this ability differs from state to state. So, having sex with a minor is having sex with someone who is unable of offering informed consent. If this is indeed the case, then adult-minor sexual relations are indeed unethical. And this is why, not... just because. There ARE reasons for prohibiting child molestation. It is not just an axiom. Recall also that there are places in the world where child molestation is perfectly OK. There is a tribe in New Guinea in which pre-pubescent boys have to perform oral sex on the older men in the tribe because, it is believed, the ingestion of semen will turn the growing boys into strong, virile men. So clearly, this is not just a universal moral axiom.

Eating meat is not wrong in and of itself. That is what is boils down to, yes, but it is not the consumption of meat itself that is unethical. It is what has to be done in order for the meat ot be obtained that is under ethical scrutiny. A living, sentient animal has to be enslaved and/or tortured and killed. That is the problem with eating meat. Imagine if it were possible to scientifically grow chunks of meat in laboratories. Would there be an ethical problem with eating meat, if it did not necessitate the enslavement, torture and killing of a sentient being? Seriously, do you see an ETHICAL problem with eating meat that is manufactured "in vitro", as it were, in a lab?

Ethics are not axiomatic, Sandra. There has to be a reasoning behind them. To say that eating meat is wrong just because seems to be like adhering to dogma rather than reasoning. I am serious about veganism. This is why I don't want to let you get away with such an unreasoned position. There are important reasons why being a vegan is an ethical choice. To discard those and act as if they don't matter because it's just "obvious" is just not a good use of one's mind. You know what I mean?

Re: Roadkill, cannibalism & dogmatism

Re: Roadkill, cannibalism & dogmatism

Korn

If you replace the last 'and' with an 'or' I agree with you. An animal or human doesn't need to be tortured of feel any pain to be killed. Suffering - as such - is only a part of the problem, isn't it?

Please don't misunderstand. It's not just about suffering for me. I am antheist. I think this is our one and only chance to experience existence. And that existence should not be ended if it is not necessary. We recently lost our beloved cat Paolo to cancer (oral fibrosarcoma). Going through that horrible ordeal made me really think about life, existence, suffering... In Paolo's case, his suffering was beginning to get to the point where his death was necessary. We had him put down on January 19, 2007. He took his last breath in my arms. He was peaceful and as heartbroken as I am, I felt good about the fact that there did not seem to be in any pain or panic. He just lost consciousness and stopped breathing.

But in the case of farm animals, even if there were a way to kill them completely painlessly, with no suffering, I would still be a vegan. Like I said, all of us who are self-aware and alive today get to experience life once during eternity. This is IT, boys and girls. To end a sentient being's life prematurely, when it is entirely unnecessary to do so, is unforgiveable.

Anthony Scalia, our very Catholic Supreme Court Justice, thinks this is a ridiculous worldview and thinks that killing someone is not so bad becuase it does not end their existence... Chances are, he is not vegan.

Then it wouldn't be meat in the meaning of the word we use today, it would be a product produced in a test lab that someone chooses to call meat. To use the same words about these two 'things' wouldn't only be silly, it would also make verbal communication about 'meat' complicated.

No, I am proposing a hypothetical situation in which animal muscle tissue could be grown in laboratories, with veins, fascia, fat, etc. It WOULD be what we call meat today. But the difference is, it would not come from an animal. No animal would have to suffer and die in order for us to take its meat. Would eating such meat be unethical, then?

Now, what was this thread about again?

I don't care. All I know is, I am enjoying the discussion.

Last edited by Korn; Sep 4th, 2007 at 09:54 AM.
Reason: Edited subtitles in this and other posts

Re: Roadkill, cannibalism & dogmatism

No, I am proposing a hypothetical situation in which animal muscle tissue could be grown in laboratories, with veins, fascia, fat, etc. It WOULD be what we call meat today.

Meat today is used about a part of the body of an animal or human which, if eating, has lived and been killed. If/when the 'meat' you talk about becomes common, it needs a separate word, otherwise people would have to explain what kind of 'meat' they are talking about each time they use the word meat...

Would eating such meat be unethical, then?

That's a topic that doesn't interest me much personally, because I wouldn't buy it anyway, but others may have something useful to say. (We have a thread about that topic here.)

Now, what was this thread about again?

I don't care. All I know is, I am enjoying the discussion.

Others who want to read about 'Did humans always eat meat?' care, because the thread is already long and several pages of off-topic posts makes it harder to find the messages that are related to the topic. I enjoy the discussion too, but please just continue the various topics in other threads.

Re: Did humans always eat meat?

Korn - I think Klytemnest is responding to the first post in this thread.
Mysh titled this thread "Did humans always eat meat?" but then went on to raise some other questions such as the ethical implications of eating roadkill, animals that died of old age, "excess" cow's milk - "in the same vein" as he/she put it, and I think Klytemnest is responding to these as well.

I think this thread has a lot of issues tied up togther and I don't think Klytemnest is taking it off topic, just focusing on certain aspects.

Re: Did humans 'always' eat meat?

mysh

I recently read this very interesting thread concerning the ethics of eating unwanted and unfertilised eggs.

Now I would like to ask, in the same vein, what are the ethical considerations on eating, for example, roadkill? Or animals that have died of old age?
Before the flaming starts - I have no plans to do either, and I understand the responsibility borne by humans in the creation of roadkill. I also understand that "VEGANS DO NOT EAT ANIMAL PRODUCTS". That isn't the issue though, is it? I mean, do you not eat animal products because you don't eat animal products (i.e. is the not-eating the goal of your veganism), or do you not eat animal products because you refuse to partake in the exploitation of animals? If the latter, it would seem (to me) somewhat difficult to use that to forbid the eating of the carcass of an animal that died of old age. And please don't use the "that's gross" argument, as that always reminds me somewhat of the purile tone of the omni argument of "if animals weren't meant to be eaten, why do they taste so good".

I am also interested in a hypothetical situation of consuming cow's milk (another bad habit I have rid myself of). Now, obviously, the issue is once again the exploitation of the animals. As we all (rightly) view animal keeping as slavery, I will take an analogy from slavery. It is obviously unethical to use a shirt made by a slave. Yet if the slave is freed, and continues making shirts, for a good wage, in good working conditions, of his own free will, it is clearly entirely acceptable to use this shirt (once you've paid for it). The Indian philosophy of "a'himsa" (sp?) claims that cow's milk is a gift given by the cow, and as such not the result of doing harm to the cow. Again, we would all agree that this is incorrect, as nobody can claim that were able to make the cow understand all the implications of these actions, as well as getting full buy-in from the cow.
So my second question is, if the cow were able to clearly and unambiguously communicate to us her desire to share her excess milk with us, would veganism allow us to partake of this gift?

Here is the original poster's post. I think I have pretty much stayed on topic. Perhaps the title of this thread is what needs to be changed. Thanks, Aphrodite. So far you are my favourite deity on this forum

Having said that, I do understand the importance of staying on-topic. This board is not merely for entertainment, but also a source of information. And so keeping this information organized makes it easier for people to obtain the information they need. I'll keep that in mind for the future.

Re: Did humans always eat meat?

Aphrodite, Klytemnest... you're probably both right - I haven't read the initial post of this thread since it was written back in 2004. I guess the thread is both a little bit about the topic itself and a lot of other things too, and I'm not really sure how it got the title it got. We'll figure out what happened one day, and maybe split the thread into two threads...

Re: Roadkill, cannibalism & dogmatism

Klytemnest

Eating meat is not wrong in and of itself. That is what is boils down to, yes, but it is not the consumption of meat itself that is unethical. It is what has to be done in order for the meat ot be obtained that is under ethical scrutiny. A living, sentient animal has to be enslaved and/or tortured and killed. That is the problem with eating meat. Imagine if it were possible to scientifically grow chunks of meat in laboratories. Would there be an ethical problem with eating meat, if it did not necessitate the enslavement, torture and killing of a sentient being? Seriously, do you see an ETHICAL problem with eating meat that is manufactured "in vitro", as it were, in a lab?

This is interesting!

I agree that with those reasons for why it's wrong to eat meat.

However, I think that until we get to an ideal social situation, there also exists many political reasons why eating any meat, manufactured in a lab or not, would not fit that agenda. My first reason for being quite strict about my veganism is ethics. Father down the line is Politics, and with that comes being aware of what social impact my veganism plays. For me to have a more powerful social impact, I try to also be consistent with the meaning of my actions. If my actions regarding animal consumption can be seen as inconsistent, then my impact is lessened. Thus, to consume one kind of meat produced in a lab while not another, produced by suffering or usery is at the very least muddles my social impact.

There is also one other political aspect. I believe that other beings should not be used against their will. In the case of growing meat in a lab, some animal, at one point, had to have their genes harvested for the production of the lab meat. It's the same as with grafting seedless plants. There has to be an original source of DNA.

Re: Did humans always eat meat?

Korn

Aphrodite, Klytemnest... you're probably both right - I haven't read the initial post of this thread since it was written back in 2004. I guess the thread is both a little bit about the topic itself and a lot of other things too, and I'm not really sure how it got the title it got. We'll figure out what happened one day, and maybe split the thread into two threads...

Hi everybody,
the posts about 'Did humans always eat meat?' are now here.

Re: Roadkill, dogmatism and cannibalism

I read an article recently about a motorbike roadshow which included a roadkill barbie, advertised with the words "You kill it, we cook it" - i.e. actively encouraging people to mow down animals with their vehicles. I'd be concerned about encouraging such behaviour. Besides, it's fucking grim!